Ohio’s Comparative Negligence Rule

Introduction

Ohio is one of several U.S. states that has adopted the Comparative Negligence Rule in its civil law code. This rule established in R.C. 2315.33 is designed to fairly distribute fault among two or more parties in a personal injury case. By presenting evidence of fault against both the plaintiff and the defendant, a jury can assign fault to each party and determine how much of the damages are apportioned to each. The goal of the Comparative Negligence Rule is to make sure that damages are appropriately awarded and distributed, even when both parties share some blame.

Overview of Ohio’s Comparative Negligence Rule

In Ohio, the Comparative Negligence Rule is generally referred to as R.C. 2315.33. This rule stipulates that a plaintiff in a personal injury case is still eligible to recover damages even if they are found to be partly at fault. However, the plaintiff’s damages will be reduced according to the percentage of fault assigned to them by the jury. For example, if the plaintiff is found to be 50% at fault, they can still potentially recover damages, but they will be reduced by 50% since they are equally responsible for their own injuries.

In addition to the Rule, Ohio also has a statute of limitations on personal injury claims, meaning that there is an established time limit for when an individual must file their claim. In Ohio, that limit is typically two years from the date of the injury, although there are some exceptions. This time limit helps ensure that both parties can receive the appropriate compensation in a timely manner.

The Benefits of the Comparative Negligence Rule

The goal of the Comparative Negligence Rule is to ensure that individuals who have been injured by the fault of another are still able to receive fair compensation for their injuries, even if they are partially at fault. This helps prevent situations in which plaintiffs receive an unfair portion of the blame, which can often lead to inadequate or unfair compensation.

The Comparative Negligence Rule also serves to incentivize safer behavior, as individuals may be more likely to take precautions against accidents or injuries if they are aware that they can still receive compensation even if they’re found to be partly at fault. This rule also encourages people to seek medical help, as they may be less likely to experience a substantial financial burden if they seek medical care in a timely manner.

Limitations of the Comparative Negligence Rule

The Comparative Negligence Rule does have some limitations, however. The main limitation is that the plaintiff must still prove that the defendant was also at fault. This means that the plaintiff must provide evidence and testimony to show that the defendant acted negligently or recklessly, and that the plaintiff was not wholly at fault for their own injuries. This can be a difficult task, as it can be difficult to prove that a defendant acted in a certain way.

Another limitation of the Rule is that it does not apply in cases where the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for their own injuries. In this case, the plaintiff cannot recover any damages, as they are presumed to be wholly liable for their own harm.

Conclusion

Ohio’s Comparative Negligence Rule is an important part of the state’s civil law code, as it helps to ensure that injured plaintiffs who are partially at fault still receive fair and appropriate compensation. By assigning fault between both parties in personal injury cases, this rule helps to ensure that victims receive the aid they need, while still holding responsible parties accountable. While there are some limitations to the Comparative Negligence Rule, it remains an important aspect of Ohio’s legal system.